The Morality of Carpet Bombing

[viscousmemories]

I spent some time yesterday and today reading the very sad and tragic story of the bombing of Guernica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Guernica), a small city in Spain. The available information is sketchy and various sources differ on the details, but the gist of it is this:

During the Spanish Civil War, Hitler's elite Condor Legion (Luftwaffe) - under the control of Francisco Franco - carried out the first 'blitzkrieg' ("carpet bombing") campaign in history against the city of Guernica. It has been alleged that this was a deliberate slaughter of civilians with the purpose of giving the fighters training and experience in the tactic, as well as to demoralize the Republic.

The result was approximately 70% of the buildings being destroyed and anywhere from 250-1500 people (in a town of roughly 3000) killed. The bombing apparently lasted three hours, and people who were seen fleeing the city on foot were machine gunned by the planes. A bridge leading out of the city (later alleged to be the actual target of the bombers) was untouched.

A recent example of carpet bombing intended to cause massive destruction and demoralize the enemy is the American Shock and Awe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_Awe) tactic used in the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The biggest obvious difference between these two examples is that in the first one the assumed intention (since to my knowledge there was never a publicly accessible plan) was demoralization of the enemy through large-scale destruction of infrastructure and massacre of civilians, and in the second example the alleged intention (according to authors) was demoralization of the enemy through large-scale destruction of infrastructure while minimizing civilian casualties.

I don't think any solid numbers exist (or for that matter ever will exist) about how many civilians were killed in the Shock and Awe campaign, but surely they anticipated some and some occurred.

So here's the question:

Assuming the truth of all the allegations above, what (if any) moral difference is there between the two scenarios?

[Adora]

...was demoralization of the enemy through large-scale destruction of infrastructure while minimizing civilian casualties.
And yet the Johns Hopkins University recently found that Iraq was a more dangerous place for civilians after the war began partly because of the bombings, amoung other things. And before anyone gets pantsy because their news service doesn't report stuff like this, go here. (http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archive2004/october/100000_deaths_in_iraq.htm#Iraq)

Personally, I can't see how air bombings can ever minimise civillian casualties, when were talking about a country that has most of its military-target infrasturcture in such dense areas close to civillians.

[The Lone Ranger]

Just a minor nitpick: "blitzkrieg" means "lightning war," and most-definitely isn't the same as carpet-bombing. (Though bombing makes up the first stage of a blitzkrieg attack.)

The idea of the blitzkrieg was to rely on speed and mobility to secure an area before the defenders could be organized.

Basically, the way it worked was like this. First, Stuka dive bombers were sent in to "soften up" the enemy; they'd attack rail lines, communication centers, and other "targets of opportunity," including civilians. The intent was to confuse and demoralize the defenders, and to create civilian panic. Thousands of panicked, fleeing civilians complicate the defenders' task enormously. (The Stukas were fitted with "Jerico Trumpet" sirens that created a shrieking sound when the planes dived; this was intended to instigate terror.)

As soon as the bombing ceased, tanks and infantry came in to attack the demoralized and confused defenders. The idea was that they wouldn't have time to recover from the aerial attack before they were set upon by a swift-moving ground attack.

It was a devastatingly-effective technique. An unknown French soldier wrote in his diary:
"When the dive-bombers come down, they [the French] stood it for two hours and then ran with their hands over their ears."

"Sedan fell as a result of a bombardment . . . it was a superb example of military surprise."

"The pace is too fast . . . it’s the co-operation between the dive-bombers and the tanks that is winning the war for Germany."

"News that the Germans are in Amiens . . . this is like some ridiculous nightmare."



Because dive-bombers could dive directly at their targets, they could bomb with far more precision than could high-altitude bombers. The Condor Legion used Heinkel He 111 bombers, which didn't dive on their targets, so the only way to hit a target was to drop lots of bombs in the general vicinity and hope for a hit.


***

As for the moral difference between the bombing of Guernica and the "Shock and Awe" campaign, I don't think there's a lot. In fairness, the Americans did try (or so I understand) to minimize civilian casualties, but to paraphrase George Carlin, until I hear of surgery being done with high explosives, I remain skeptical about "surgically-precise bombing." Besides, most of the estimates I've seen claim that something like 100,000 Iraqis have been killed in this war -- most of them by bombs or missiles.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the war in Iraq was justified. Assuming this to be the case, I can see where it would definitely be a good idea to try to demoralize and confuse the enemy as much as possible before you attack with ground troops. (Air power is all well and good, but to secure an area, you need troops on the ground.) If you time your ground attack well, with luck, the enemy will be overrun and conquered before they know what hit them. Theoretically, this could save lives on both sides. Theoretically.

I suppose that if the war must be fought, something like "Shock and Awe" is probably the way most people on your side will want to see it done. After all, who cares about casualties on the enemy side -- so what if they're civilians? they're the enemy.


Is there any "moral" way to fight a war? I don't know. Even in the last "good war," we Americans committed some true atrocities. The deliberate destruction of Dresden comes to mind, for instance.

Cheers,

Michael

[squian]

Assuming the truth of all the allegations above, what (if any) moral difference is there between the two scenarios?

As you already stated, intent is the difference. We reflect this sentiment in the law. The intent to commit a crime is a crime itself, though lesser than if you succeed. And a crime with intent is greater than one committed unintentionally.

As was typical of attrocities during that era, there is this air of scientific reasoning. Many people died during WWII just to prove this or that battle tactic or weapon was effective. The nationalist zeal of Germany or Japan was considerable differnt than that of the USA today. While the Germans and Japanese set out to spread their "race", I doubt there is anything more in the "Americanization" of Iraq than adopting the right form of government, and more importantly economics. As such, there is no need to prove out the most effective way to rub out an entire people.

But why does the shade of gray matter? Is war ever moral?

[Shake]

Well, The Lone Ranger beat me to the nitpick, though I disagree about it being minor, over the blitzkrieg definition. But I have some of my own "nitpicks," if you will.

Note that I'm taking much of this directly from the link provided by vm in his o.p.
Some critics have even accused the Shock and Awe strategy of being a repackaging of carpet bombing. Carpet bombing deliberately targets dispersed targets with massive numbers of "dumb" bombs, and is effectively a long distance artillery. World War II Allied policy was to deliberately target civilian centers in order to destroy homes, thereby reducing Germany's industrial output as workers were displaced.

Rapid Dominance is not similar to carpet bombing. It has very specific targets, ones that are attacked with precision guided weapons. Other military analysts find the comparison of modern precision weapons to the indiscriminate high-altitude bombing of sixty years ago to be absurd, and ridicule the idea that the US would have any problem establishing air superiority.
Wikipedia also had a link for "carpet bombing", which is good since I was going to look that up next anyway. Here's their entry (in part at least):The phrases area bombing and carpet bombing refer to the use of huge numbers of unguided gravity bombs to ensure the certain destruction of a target, as a means of mass destruction, or as a means to demoralize the enemy.
So, what I intend to show with these two quotes as well as our collective experience of having witnessed Gulf I and II, is that Shock and Awe was not carpet bombing. I'm sure we all remember all of the video from Desert Storm of precision-guided munitions hitting specific targets. Today's technology allows greater precision with less chance of collateral damage. One plane with one weapon today can do more effectively what a squadron of bombers armed with multiple weapons in WWII could do. They lacked the precision then, so they merely targeted some rectangular area which contained the target and just dropped shitloads of bombs hoping that at least a few would hit the intended target.

That said, you're right, there were almost certainly still civilian casualties in recent attacks. Is it any less moral to kill 1 innocent than hundreds of innocents? Probably not. I think part of the justification used with using precision weapons is that great lengths have been taken to minimize damage to non-military targets. Casualties of such attacks are then seen more as being almost accidental or coincidental perhaps.

Looking above just now, I believe squian has gotten to the heart of what I'm trying to say. Besides, other matters now command my attention, so I may return later to conclude.

[viscousmemories]

Thanks for your input, folks. I apologize for letting this thread fall by the wayside but I'm glad you brought it back to life, Shake. I apologize for the factual errors in the OP. I'm not sure where I got the idea that blitzkreig is synonymous with carpet-bombing, and I agree that the "Shock and Awe" campaign doesn't really seem to be fairly characterized as carpet-bombing. (Not sure where I got that comparison either).

In any case I also agree that the more important and useful question is the morality of war in general, but I'm not really able or inclined to discuss that right now.

[Darren]

[QUOTE=viscousmemories]


A recent example of carpet bombing intended to cause massive destruction and demoralize the enemy is the American Shock and Awe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_Awe) tactic used in the invasion of Iraq in 2003.


I don't think any solid numbers exist (or for that matter ever will exist) about how many civilians were killed in the Shock and Awe campaign, but surely they anticipated some and some occurred.

Actually, The Lancet, a highly respected medical journal puts conservative estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths since the invasion at plus one hundred thousand. Of course not all of these would have been killed by arial bombardment, but the use of cluster bombs, napalm and high explosive warheads in civilian population centres will certainly result in the deaths of large numbers of civilians, even if these are not officially recognized as primary targets. Example, bomb a civilian hospital clinic in Falloujah (10 November 2004) and you will kill civilians (reported: 20 doctors dead with unnumbered additional civilian casualties).

Have you noticed how absent the figures for civilian casualties in Iraq are generally in the press? And don't you wonder how many Iraqi conscripts died so that they could be free (lots of hurrays!)? I have never heard a single estimate of their numbers. Do we consider all of the Iraqi men press-ganged into military service as somehow guilty or deserving of death just because they were unlucky enough to live in a country with compulsory military service which was then attacked by the Coalition?
The justification for Shock and Awe should be considered relative to the justification for the war itself, and there was no good reason to kill, say, conscripts manning an anti-aircraft defence system (regular targets for arial bombardment since at least 1998), let alone civilians going about their daily business, if there was no good reason to go to war in the first place. I think we all know now that there was no good reason.

[Darren]

The Stukas were fitted with "Jerico Trumpet" sirens that created a shrieking sound when the planes dived; this was intended to instigate terror.

This is true, both my grandfathers were caught up in WW2 and though they spent lots of time in different theatres of the war, the most abiding memory each of them had of the war was being the target of Stukas in the North African campaign. It seems to have been quite an unforgettable experience.

[Darren]

I doubt there is anything more in the "Americanization" of Iraq than adopting the right form of government, and more importantly economics. As such, there is no need to prove out the most effective way to rub out an entire people.[/I]

Oh, and getting hold of all those lovely oil reserves :D , and keeping on using Petrodollars instead of Euros :D and so forth and so on :D . I assume you are being cynical here and the right form of government and economics is at the very heart of the matter?



But why does the shade of gray matter? Is war ever moral[/I]?


Good point - I doubt whether it ever is. Mind you the Iraqis weren't really given much of a choice. Perhaps resistance or self-defence warfare has a subtly better claim to morality than aggression - but of course the Coalition was just defending itself against potential aggression sometime in the future, of course.

[Darren]

[quote]Some critics have even accused the Shock and Awe strategy of being a repackaging of carpet bombing. Carpet bombing deliberately targets dispersed targets with massive numbers of "dumb" bombs, and is effectively a long distance artillery. World War II Allied policy was to deliberately target civilian centers in order to destroy homes, thereby reducing Germany's industrial output as workers were displaced.

I'm sure we all remember all of the video from Desert Storm of precision-guided munitions hitting specific targets. Today's technology allows greater precision with less chance of collateral damage. One plane with one weapon today can do more effectively what a squadron of bombers armed with multiple weapons in WWII could do. They lacked the precision then, so they merely targeted some rectangular area which contained the target and just dropped shitloads of bombs hoping that at least a few would hit the intended target.


You are not seriously suggesting that one precision guided bomb complete with camera should be taken as representative of all the bombs dropped by the coalition aviation? You say that you are sure that everyone remembers the Desert Storm video, but so are the propagandists who produced and released that precision piece of work. In fact, they are counting on you remembering it. Goebbels would have approved of such methods.
Massive numbers of cluster bombs (by their very nature non-precision weapons and very much in line with the triangular area targeting you describe above) have been used on Iraq, along with massive numbers of other kinds of "dumb" bombs, but they didn't have cameras attached. And the bombing continues....

Two points about the WW2 bombing:
1) The American Eighth Air Force (the American air group involved in the bombardment of Europe in the forties) also claimed precision bombing as a regular practice.
2) I know you don't actually make this claim in your post, but the Allied bombing of Germany was shown by the serious post war analysis of it's effect on the German war effort to have had, in fact, minimal impact on production. The defeat of Germany was largely facilitated (some might say achieved) by the actions of the Red army on the Eastern front where some eighty percent of the German military was destroyed. Naturally this officially commissioned and scientific (U.S. too) analysis was shelved by the Allied air ministries to maintain the myth of the utility of what was, in effect, mass murder of civilians.

[Darren]

Regarding the nitpicking sub-thread over the term "blitzkrieg" for bombing, there is probably some confusion here with the "blitz", i.e. the name given to the massive German bombing raids on British cities, esp. London, during the early nineteen forties.

[Shake]

You are not seriously suggesting that one precision guided bomb complete with camera should be taken as representative of all the bombs dropped by the coalition aviation? You say that you are sure that everyone remembers the Desert Storm video, but so are the propagandists who produced and released that precision piece of work. In fact, they are counting on you remembering it. Goebbels would have approved of such methods.
Massive numbers of cluster bombs (by their very nature non-precision weapons and very much in line with the triangular area targeting you describe above) have been used on Iraq, along with massive numbers of other kinds of "dumb" bombs, but they didn't have cameras attached. And the bombing continues...
Absolutely not! No, I happen to know that we still used many many "dumb" bombs as well in Desert Storm. It was just that especially in the opening attacks, the F-117s came in with precision munitions on the specific mission to take out specific tactical targets such as communication centers, etc. Also, you should know that one of the modern uses of cluster bombs (and this is very likely how many of them were used then) is to render runways useless. (If the enemy planes can't get off the ground, they can't hurt you.) So, it's not like they're used on targets such as factories.

Dumb bombs were probably used against military targets, such as entrenched groups of Iraqi army units (Republican Guard, et al). The dumb bombs are relatively cheap and extremely plentiful. As for carpet bombing, it can have quite the demoralizing effect too (as we learned from former VC decades earlier). So, if the net effect is that there are desertions or mass surrenders which lead to a quicker end to hostilities, is that not a good thing?

I realize it's all kind of a gray area, so my above question should be taken within the framework that war is a terrible thing in general.

Yes, I also know that the 8th AF also claimed "precision bombing". This is a relative term in this respect. Their precision was probably due to the fact that they were doing daylight bombing and could (usually) see what they were aiming at, and therefore probably had greater accuracy than say, the RAF, who did nighttime bombing runs.

Again, as I said above, back in WWII, it took numerous aircraft with tons of ordinance all dropping in a certain area to have a decent chance of taking out a particular target. My point was that we now have the means for one plane with one piece of ordinance to do the same job and do it far more effectively than half a century ago.

[Darren]

Again, as I said above, back in WWII, it took numerous aircraft with tons of ordinance all dropping in a certain area to have a decent chance of taking out a particular target. My point was that we now have the means for one plane with one piece of ordinance to do the same job and do it far more effectively than half a century ago.

So essentially, we can now carpet bomb with a single aircraft and one piece of ordnance? :cool:

[beyelzu]

Again, as I said above, back in WWII, it took numerous aircraft with tons of ordinance all dropping in a certain area to have a decent chance of taking out a particular target. My point was that we now have the means for one plane with one piece of ordinance to do the same job and do it far more effectively than half a century ago.

So essentially, we can now carpet bomb with a single aircraft and one piece of ordnance? :cool:
I will assume that you are not being deliberately obtuse.

The point is that the us has spent hundreds of billions of dollars* developing weapons that targetted better. Now it is possible to target a building and not just blast the entire city.

*a number that I pulled out of my ass, but I am sure that it is in the ballpark if a little low.